Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PROTECT-IP Makes Its Way To the Floors of Congress

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-call-him-bill dept.

New submitter trunicated writes "Everyone on Slashdot seems to know about PROTECT-IP Act — how it will push responsibility for the contents of the internet onto the search engines that index it, how it will give even more power to the *IAA industries, and, worst of all, how it will provide the U.S. government with a kill switch they can use at their discretion. However, this write up may provide you with a bit more information and help you explain the issues to those that won't be able to get around the poisoned DNS entries that this bill will allow."

36 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. So much for the internet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was fun for a while. Too bad they've decided to kill it.

    1. Re:So much for the internet. by lymond01 · · Score: 2

      Seems I've seen a bumper sticker somewhere - Nothing ever imrpoves with Government involvement.

      Government involvement in this case is kind of ridiculous. This is completely a defense of corporations thing and corporations should have to deal with it themselves. Protect their own content or change their business model. If the government wants to help out, have an Arts Fund where a portion of everyone's taxes goes to struggling artists (and I think that's about 99% of them, no pun intended). Don't spend time or taxpayer dollars taking away the arts from people just to put money in the middle-man's hand.

      Hire someone to professionally record your CD.
      Market yourself on MySpace, your local radio station, Facebook.
      Wiggle your way onto iTunes indie list.
      Profit.

      The RIAA is the marketing part which is the key to getting rich. But the Internet, and a lot of your own work, lets you skip them and still get your music out there and maybe even eat. And it'll just keep getting easier. The RIAA should work harder on concerts and forget the royalties for recording. They'll shrink considerably, but that's probably a good thing at this point.

    2. Re:So much for the internet. by anagama · · Score: 2
      From Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash

      When it gets down to it -- talking trade balances here -- once we've brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they're making cars in Bolivia and microwave ovens in Tadzhikistan and selling them here -- once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel -- once the Invisible Hand has taken away all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani brickmaker would consider to be prosperity -- y'know what? There's only four things we do better than anyone else:
      music
      movies
      microcode (software)
      high-speed pizza delivery

      Sort of prescient, although software is feeling the outsourcing pinch. While it might be nice to think that Congress is finally doing something to protect American jobs (kind of hard to outsource singing if you can't understand the lyrics), we all know this is just another piece of legislation paid for by the giant corps who are bleeding us dry, and as such, like the numerous trade deals with 3d world economies, will be of no actual benefit to Americans.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    3. Re:So much for the internet. by wvmarle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder what would happen if say Google would go dark for a day, US only: replace the standard search page with a page "this is what you will see if the PROTECT-IP act becomes law". It seems, from the face of it, that this is basically the only thing Google can do to survive under such an act. Let the country feel how it would be, to do without their favourite search engine. Have Bing and Yahoo cooperate in this - all out for a day in the US, not a holiday or so, no a normal weekday - and the outcry should be sufficient. And it would give a good idea on the economic losses this bill could cause.

      And in the meantime of course they would continue to provide services as usual in jurisdictions that are not affected, i.e. the rest of the world.

      If that doesn't get the message home, nothing would, and the US is doomed.

    4. Re:So much for the internet. by mgf64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder what would happen if say Google would go dark for a day, US only: replace the standard search page with a page "this is what you will see if the PROTECT-IP act becomes law". It seems, from the face of it, that this is basically the only thing Google can do to survive under such an act. Let the country feel how it would be, to do without their favourite search engine. Have Bing and Yahoo cooperate in this - all out for a day in the US, not a holiday or so, no a normal weekday - and the outcry should be sufficient. And it would give a good idea on the economic losses this bill could cause.

      And in the meantime of course they would continue to provide services as usual in jurisdictions that are not affected, i.e. the rest of the world.

      If that doesn't get the message home, nothing would, and the US is doomed.

      Wikipedia just did that to Italy. The law proposal was amended within days of Wikipedia strike. Maybe they SHOULD.

    5. Re:So much for the internet. by Shompol · · Score: 2

      Have Bing and Yahoo cooperate in this - all out for a day in the US

      • - When Google stopped serving China, Ballmer announced that they are happy to stay.
      • - Sadly Yahoo search no longer exists. It is a redirect to Bing. Check it.
      • - Google complied with the Patriot Act. Expect them to comply with all future legislation. We, the people, should control our government; do not expect to hide behind any corporation's behind.
  2. You ain't seen nothin' yet by JamesonLewis3rd · · Score: 2

    Complete control over everything is their goal.
    I'm not young but I would not be surprised if, one day, my wife and I find ourselves living in a tent somewhere, eating what we can catch or forage.

    --
    Hebrews 11:8
    Jeremiah 33:3
    1. Re:You ain't seen nothin' yet by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Complete control over everything is their goal.

      I'm not young but I would not be surprised if, one day, my wife and I find ourselves living in a tent somewhere, eating what we can catch or forage.

      So ... that'll be one camping pass ... and one hunting/fishing permit, unless you plan to eat only plants, then you'll run afoul of the regulations on havesting plants, which are protected, on public lands.

      The way to beat the system is to become part of it and then force change from within.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. More accurately... by mykos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nothing ever improves when corporations and the governments team up to screw the populace.

    1. Re:More accurately... by RenderSeven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. ~P.J. O'Rourke

    2. Re:More accurately... by schwit1 · · Score: 2

      "You've got to follow the strings, and the ones holding all the strings are corporations. They became more powerful than any government decades ago."

      Right. That's why California, New York, Illinois and many other states are near bankruptcy.

    3. Re:More accurately... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      You've got to follow the strings, and the ones holding all the strings are corporations. They became more powerful than any government decades ago.

      Riiiiight. That's because of all the enforcement of corporate policies by armed bureaucracies, the IRS, autonomous drones and legions of ... rent-a-cops?

      Strings are more powerful than guns, now?

      If only the government had MORE power (to beat MORE heads), everything would be okay, right? Then they would only protect the people that spend their days working and have limited funds for lobbying and media time, right?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    4. Re:More accurately... by Khyber · · Score: 2

      California Near Bankruptcy, still #8 or #9 economy in the world.

      If that doesn't paint a bleak picture, I don't know what will.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:More accurately... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Strings are more powerful then guns if the strings decide who gets shot. And I've said it before, will say it again. I'll take my chances with the gov't, because at least I HAVE a chance. Corporations stated goal is profit, not matter what the cost. The gov't at least has the potential to be "By the people, for the people". A corporation will never be anything but what it is: A replacement for the apparatus of the Divine Right of Kings.

      The "Divine Right of Kings" IS, a form of government. Corporations have no power in a free market, only the consumers do. They have no powers of coercion, they require government for that. Government retains a monopoly on violence - all over violence is unlawful. A government "By the people" does nothing to protect the rights of its people, unless it is constrained from doing so - that's the purpose of the US Constitution - to constrain the powers of the government to its primary purpose: protecting the individual rights of its people.

      The US Federal government does not really prioritize on that anymore - they are powerful enough not to. They don't respond to the people very much anymore, they are powerful enough not to. And with a government that powerful, with that much influence over all commerce and the ability to interject rules into every private transaction, of course there are entities looking to influence the government to favor them with their rules. Companies that do NOT invest in lobbying and influencing legislators are at a disadvantage, and if they manage to grow successful in such a situation, eventually the government will come after them for daring to ignore the government's power. Microsoft learned that lesson, and now has one of the largest lobbying budgets of any US company. Gibson Guitar is learning that lesson right now.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    6. Re:More accurately... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. That's why California, New York, Illinois and many other states are near bankruptcy.

      Texas was closer to bankruptcy than Illinois before they used all that Federal stimulus money to buy their way out of debt.

      Maybe those states are near bankruptcy because corporations that make all the money in those states aren't paying taxes. Here in Chicago, every big box store that opens up does so thanks to a tax abatement in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Koch Brothers only decided to do business in Wisconsin when Scott Walker pushed through his big tax giveaway to them.

      Again, what I'm saying, that corporate lobbyists are currently in charge of at least two of the three branches of the US government, is not really disputable. Most new legislation is literally written by lobbyists. Every single new regulation is written by lobbyists. Every change to the tax code, without exception, is written by lobbyists.

      Just by promising fat paydays to congressional staffers, they control more than 80% of all legislators. If you're a congressional staffer right now, your average salary on the day you leave congress is more than a half-million dollars. If your congressman is a member of a powerful committee, you're guaranteed seven figures. The first thing every single elected official does when leaving office is become a lobbyist. It's a big club and it has replaced our constitutional representative government in a silent coup which started in earnest in January of 1981 when Ronald Reagan declared the US government for sale to the highest bidder.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:More accurately... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      You said "corporations" hold all the strings, and you compare them to Napoleon - a dictator with an army. Excellent example of a false equivalency if I ever saw one.

      Slowly now...

      Napoleon had an army.

      Corporations have a government, which has guns.

      The last I saw, it was 535 people in Washington that pass, enforce, and uphold the laws

      And 40,000 lobbyists, each offering money to those 535 people.

      If you're a big strong contract killer and you work for a mob boss, who's got the power? Trans-national corporations are the mob boss.

      I think you're being purposely obtuse about this, pretending not to understand the most basic of rules: That the one with the gold makes the rules. Even the Federal Reserve, who has ALL the "gold" is a corporate entity. There was a coup while you were sleeping, wolfy.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Self Healing & Self Explanatory by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    help you explain the issues to those that won't be able to get around the poisoned DNS entries that this bill will allow

    When Pakistan screwed up, according to their own internal policies, and altered the routing (BGP) and effectively caused youtube.com to be /dev/null'd for a half a day, the rest of the world responded. They fixed the routes, and Pakistan lost a lot of credibility and respect from other IT people. Were Pakistan to continue affecting the rest of the world with its internal policies, the rest of the world would respond more and more stringently, to the point that Pakistan would not have access to such systems anymore.

    This is no different. If the US decides to mess around with DNS in accordance with its own internal policies, the rest of the world will respond by taking that control away. Either through a EU sanctioned DNS infrastructure, or some sort of p2p infrastructure.

    The alternative is the rest of the world dealing with clearly incorrect DNS entries and businesses having to deal with US control.

    This problem does not need to be further explained, and the ones that do understand it, will work around it. This is a good thing. It will push DNS beyond US control, and might actually start a decentralized/fractured DNS system where those that care can resolve host names the way they see fit.

    In short, this only provides more motivation to "solving" our problem of a monitored Internet. Create a secondary Internet on top of it that is not monitored and cannot be interfered with. Several projects in the works, and this only puts more fuel on the fire so to speak.

    1. Re:Self Healing & Self Explanatory by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2
      (regarding the Internet) "Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring"

      -- Sir Tim Berners-Lee

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Self Healing & Self Explanatory by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think I understand what you are trying to say, but it does not apply to a secondary layer or DNS.

      DNS is just name resolution. It does not imply splitting into many pieces at all, and in fact, would more than likely be redundant. I can see DNS resolution becoming more granular, and its set up and operation more than just a few dialog boxes in a control interface.

      You can have DNS networks that forward their questions to other networks. That's not new. Using it in a way to create a separate infrastructure and preferred resolution with other networks depending on the TLDs, etc. would be. I don't see that as far fetched either.

      As for the secondary layer, that is not affecting the primary layer at all as far as divisions, peer and transit agreements, etc. There could be multiple secondary layers, which is highly likely, and would be more like protected communities. The secondary layer that delivers the most popular features with the highest level of service will win.

      In any case, I don't think it will have an outcome as dreary as the one you portray. It's going to happen eventually, and some people might get left behind for awhile. Right now we live in a idealistic paradise compared to what content companies, carriers, and governments want us to have. Even if it is like you say, we are headed for it.

      The Internet will fork. That's my post 2012 prediction.

    3. Re:Self Healing & Self Explanatory by prowler1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you will end up seeing is that the internet in America is going to end up looking and working a lot like the internet in China does but instead of being controlled by the government, it will be controlled by corporations. In this case, *IAA will be initially in charge but if the bill is passed and goes into effect, how long will it be until other corporations start to jump onto the band wagon and start to control/block things they don't like.

      Lets also be honest, how many other governments/corporations out there would love to do something similar in their country of choice and how many have already started to bring out watered down control laws, look at Australia with its internet filter as a start.

  5. Tech industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please buy the media industries already. They have way too much power over your business in comparison to their economic weight.

  6. It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. by Pluvius · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's now known as the E-PARASITE Act. Normally I wouldn't bother posting over something so trivial, but the new name is so poetically apt that I have to mention it.

    Rob

    1. Re:It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. by mrquagmire · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sign the white house petition here: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-e-parasite-act/SWBYXX55

      --
      giggity
    2. Re:It's not the PROTECT-IP Act. by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Informative

      In order to sign that petition, you have to have an account at whitehouse.gov. If you click on the "WHY," it tells you that you have to have an account there in order to sign petitions. So much for a "transparent administration."

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  7. Re:its a limit problem actually by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't even have to do that. Just blame it all on the [other party], and point out how much more the [other party] is, and the public is sure to avoid voting for any third party, because it might mean the [wrong party] gets elected.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  8. Re:hmmm by Thing+1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    As I read about the poisoned DNS entries, I pause to edit /etc/hosts

    Yeah, a while ago (3 months and a day, my comment shows) I stopped Facebook's ability to monitor me, at least from this computer. Added to /etc/hosts:

    # screw facebook 2011-07-31
    127.0.0.1 facebook.com
    127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com

    I'll likely do the same once the details of this are known...

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  9. Do we even have to worry? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2

    Does this even have much of a chance of passing? Considering how hard it's been lately to get IMPORTANT laws passed... do we even have to worry?

    Our government can't seem to get much of anything done lately; how is this different?

    1. Re:Do we even have to worry? by shadowofwind · · Score: 2

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/house-republicans-keeping-the-faith/2011/11/01/gIQAP8EPdM_story.html?hpid=z3

      And the patent reform bill passed both houses a month or so ago.

    2. Re:Do we even have to worry? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      Does this even have much of a chance of passing? Considering how hard it's been lately to get IMPORTANT laws passed... do we even have to worry?

      Our government can't seem to get much of anything done lately; how is this different?

      Like all laws that benefit only the government and their corporate buddies, it will be passed as a "bi-partisan effort", and sold as "an important innovation to protect the American people."

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  10. Wrote to my senator, and... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wrote to my senator (Mike Johanns, R-NE) to urge him to oppose the Hollywood Welfare Act [1] which helps a tiny (but vocal) cartel at the expense of everyone else. His office replied to say he agreed that it was crucial legislation to protect America's creative industries. So much for letter writing. :-/

    In fairness, the last time I wrote him on a completely unrelated subject, he called me himself. I got home to an answering message: "Hi Kirk, this is Mike Johanns and I wanted to talk to you about your letter. Sorry I missed you! Give me a call back if you'd like." We never managed to meet up, but I respect that he personally went of out his way to address a constituent. I just hate that he's firmly on the wrong side (in my opinion) of this issue.

    [1] I called it by its official name in my letter, but call it by its real name elsewhere.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Wrote to my senator, and... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      See you when your stuff gets 'uploaded'.

      You can download my stuff - legally - in a lot of places. Share and enjoy!

      It is not only about big corporations and big media, independenst and small artists alike need this badly.

      Bullshit. Independents and small artists will never have the resources to wield these sticks. This is a Hollywood power grab and there's simply no other reasonable way to describe it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  11. Re:so... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

    Partisan politics are retarded, as are people that think that there is any real difference between the Republicans and Democrats. You're rooting for much the same team one way or another...

  12. Distinction without a difference by mykos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. ~P.J. O'Rourke

    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomas Jefferson

    Looks like Jefferson didn't get his wish.

  13. Re:Popularity in the single digits by JavaBear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Occupy MPAA/RIAA ?

  14. Not yet on the House floor by benuski · · Score: 2

    To be fair, so far this bill has only been referred to the Judiciary Committee; it is not yet on the floor of the House of Representatives as a whole. The vast majority of bills die in committee, so let's hope this one does as well. You can track the progress of the bill at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261.

  15. Re:Popularity in the single digits by SlippyToad · · Score: 2

    No, we should have payed Osama

    It's PAID, moron. P-A-I-D past tense of P-A-Y which you would know if you really knew the language of your country.

    But what really is stupid is your lumping of Osama in with "communists." It's as if you have had so many bullshit fears stuffed into your eagerly stupid head, you think all of your imaginary demons are the same.

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on